Photo of Joseph Reilly

Joseph Reilly

Subscribe to Joseph Reilly's Posts

Financial services companies depend on Joe for all aspects of their regulatory and compliance needs. Drawing from two decades of experience in the sector, he provides actionable guidance in a complex and evolving landscape.

Follow:Read more about Joseph ReillyJoseph's Linkedin Profile

On August 8, bankers associations from all 50 states sent a joint letter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) urging it to stay enforcement and implementation of the small business data collection and reporting final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Final Rule) for all covered financial institutions until after the U.S. Supreme Court’s final decision in Community Financial Services Association (CFSA) v. CFPB. The banking trade groups argued that relief should be provided to banks nationwide to “be prudent and ameliorate confusion.”

On August 7, the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions (NAFCU) and the Credit Union National Association (CUNA) sent a joint letter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) urging it to stay enforcement and implementation of the small business data collection and reporting final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Final Rule) for all covered financial institutions until after the U.S. Supreme Court’s final decision in Community Financial Services Association (CFSA) v CFPB.

As discussed here, on April 26, the Texas Bankers Association (TBA), the American Bankers Association (ABA), and Rio Bank, McAllen, Texas (Rio Bank) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank…

In our latest episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis and his colleagues Stefanie Jackman, Joe Reilly, and Jonathan Floyd discuss the CFPB’s advisory opinion related to collection of time-barred debt. The discussion includes a look at the historical events that led up to this opinion, whether or not an FDCPA-covered debt collector can sue to collect a time-barred debt, how this opinion relates to state law analogs, and key takeaways for the industry.

As discussed here, on April 26, the Texas Bankers Association, the American Bankers Association (ABA), and Rio Bank, McAllen, Texas (Rio Bank) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Final Rule). As discussed here, § 1071 amended the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) to impose significant data collection and reporting requirements on small business creditors. The plaintiffs’ complaint relied heavily on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Community Financial Services Association (CFSA) v CFPB, finding the CFPB’s funding structure unconstitutional and, therefore, rules promulgated by the Bureau invalid. The CFPB’s appeal of the Fifth Circuit’s decision is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court (discussed here).

On June 6, Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen signed into law Legislative Bill 92, which, among many other subjects, amends the Nebraska Installment Loan Act (the NILA). Previously, a license was required for a lender seeking to take advantage of the usury authority provided by the NILA and also for any person that holds or acquires any rights of ownership, servicing, or other forms of participation in a loan under the NILA. Legislative Bill 92 expands the scope of the licensing requirement to “any person that is not a financial institution who, at or after the time a [covered] loan is made by a financial institution, markets, owns in whole or in part, holds, acquires, services, or otherwise participates in such loan.” “Financial institution” is broadly defined to include all federally insured depository institutions. And the licensing requirement, by its terms, applies to entities providing limited services and/or purchasing limited interests (not just the predominant economic interest) in loans by financial institutions of $25,000 or less, with rates exceeding the Nebraska general usury limit.

On July 26, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released the summer edition of its Supervisory Highlights report, providing a high-level overview of alleged unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP) identified by the agency during examinations from July 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023. The findings included in the report cover examinations in the areas of auto origination, auto servicing, consumer reporting, debt collection, deposits, fair lending, information technology, mortgage origination, mortgage servicing, payday and small dollar lending, and remittances.

As recently discussed on our podcast here, section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) amended the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) to require lenders to collect information about small business credit applications they receive, including geographic and demographic data concerning the principal owners, lending decisions, and the price of credit. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued its proposed rule in 2021, and after considering the over 2,500 comments it received, on March 30, 2023, the CFPB issued the massive, highly technical, and complicated Final Rule. The Final Rule and its accompanying discussion and analysis, as well as the Official Commentary totals 888 pages exclusive of the 123-page Filing Instruction Guide and numerous other documents released by the Bureau. In this fourth in a multi-post blog series (first post available here, second here, third here), we will take a closer look at the anti-discouragement provisions in the Final Rule.

On June 28, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed into law Senate Bill 1032 entitled An Act Requiring Certain Financing Disclosures, which requires certain providers of commercial financing to make various disclosures and requires providers and brokers to register. Connecticut now joins states like Utah, California, Georgia, New York, Florida, and Virginia (discussed here, here, here, here, here, and here) in requiring such disclosures.

On June 16, Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo signed into law Senate Bill 276, which significantly amended Nevada Revised Statute 649, otherwise known as the Nevada Collection Agencies Licensing Act (the Act). The Act regulates the activities of “collection agencies,” or any person “engaging, directly or indirectly, and as a primary or a secondary object business or pursuit, in the collection of or in soliciting or obtaining in any manner the payment of a claim owed or due or asserted to be owed or due to another.” Among other things, Senate Bill 276 expanded the exemptions from the collection agency licensing requirement to include entities that are not debt collectors under § 1692a(6)(A) – (F) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). From a practical perspective, these expanded licensure exemptions should result in many first-party servicers no longer needing to obtain a Nevada collections license. Highlights of Senate Bill 276 include: